4 February 2025 - Ordinary

Good evening and welcome to the Hawkesbury City Council meeting of the 4th of February 2025. I'd like to welcome all those who are attending the meeting in the gallery tonight and those who are attending online. I'd just also like to apologise for starting a little bit late. It's our first meeting of the year. We have a smoking ceremony and it required some photos taken.

Thank you. I'd like to

Say the Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Dharawal people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all elders past and present and emerging and acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First People of this country. I'd now like to hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5. 3. 3 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting and live stream of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. I'm getting to the mobile phone section. The gallery may be seen in the live stream video, so if you don't wish to be recorded in the live stream, please move to the foyer and we'll turn the live stream speakers on for you. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system and uploaded to Council's website. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior authority of the Council. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting.

This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. And finally, if you haven't already got the message, if you've got your mobile phone on you, can you please turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you

Mr Mayor . Thank you. Excuse me, all councillors in attendance, so there is no apologies. Declarations of interest. Does any councillor have any declarations in relation to the matters

Before us tonight? Yeah, in item 15. 2. 2, a less

Than pecuniary interest. 10. 2.

2, was it

Okay , good. Yep. Thank

You. There's a matter that we need to deal with that's pretty important tonight, and I'd hand over to the general manager and one of our most recent councillors.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The Local Government Act requires all councillors to take an oath of office or make an affirmation of office out or before the first meeting of the council after that council or council law is elected. Tonight is the first meeting after the countback election held on the 20th of December 2024, where Councillor Peter Ryan was elected to fill a casual vacancy in civic office. Councillor Ryan will need to take an oath of office or make an affirmation of office prior to participating in any council meeting. Councillors and members of the gallery, I would now like to invite Councillor Peter Ryan to take his declaration of office. Councillor Ryan, please come forward to the lectern and take

Your oath of office. Thank you. I, Peter Anthony Ryan, swear that I will understand the duties of the office of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the Hawkesbury City local government area and the Hawkesbury City Council, and that I will faithfully, impartially carry out the functions, powers and authorities and discretions vested in me under the Local Government Act 1993, or other acts to the best of my ability. I made this declaration on Tuesday the 4th of February 2025

Thank

You.

Moving on with the business tonight, the confirmation of the minutes of the 10th of December 2024. Councillor McBarn. Thank you

Mr Mayor. Can I please suggest a change to the minutes of the meeting 10th of December on page 15. Down the bottom of

Resolution 238, it says, A rescission motion has been received in regard to this matter. Can I please take out the words has been received and change with was lodged after the meeting. Thanks, Councillor. Thank you

Very much. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Veigel . Those in favour?

Against? Carried

The minutes of the extraordinary meeting on the

16th of December. Mr Mayor, I've got a comment about those

Councillor McBarn. I'm just a bit of a stickler that minutes reflect what actually happened in the meeting, and there was a procedural motion moved in that meeting about an additional speaker to speak, and that's not included. I think if anyone was to watch the webcast , the minutes are not the same. I don't think it was recorded, but I would just

Think in future, if there's even a procedural motion and something that is raised, if it's being webcast and broadcast as the official record of this meeting, particularly for historical purposes, then the written minutes should in fact reflect that. Not only that, the vote it reflected was actually a 6-5 vote in favour of that procedural motion, and yet it was called lost. So I think a little bit more care in how — The reflection of what has actually occurred should be included in the minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. It's just been clarified by the general manager, but we'll discuss

That further in regard to your comments. Thank you. Would someone else, someone would like to second that? Yeah. Sorry. Yeah

Those in

Favour? Against? The minutes of the 16th of December.

Adopted. Yep

It was seconded by Councillor Creed. Okay . Sorry, those in favour of that? Against? Carried. The movers were Councillor Zembrodno, Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Peter Ryan, Shane Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon,

Dogramaci and Sheather. Mr — Councillors Zembrodno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett and... Ryan voted against

The adoption of the minutes. Sorry, I didn't see that. Is that accurate? Can it be recorded that way? Thank you. The

Motion's carried.

With reports for discussion, we have two speakers this evening in relation to item 10. 3. 1, submission to Richmond Bridge. It's Darren McLean and Rod Alton. Mr McLean, come forward please.

You have five minutes, and there's a bell with a minute to

Go. Okay, good evening, Mr Mayor, councillors and members of the public. It's a new ball game. The REF introduces significant design changes mainly due to the delivery fragmentation and lack of funding to ever complete the whole project. This changes everything. The traffic outcomes are not advantageous, and the necessary traffic benefits are dissolved. The draft document does successfully highlight a number of deeply concerning assumptions about future monetary burdens on Council for the current bridge and feeder roads. It is likely that Council have not been confronted with the cost realisation nor any Transport for New South Wales consultation on these topics . The impact is likely increased rates for residents .

Fundamental areas have been underrepresented that require additional focus to align with those people in the community deeply and negatively impacted every hour and every day. Additionally, the proposed route is Transport's own preference, and in its current form is a slap in the face to our community

And a monument to short-sightedness. Coverage of the REF mail distribution has proven to be unreliable and sporadic, even for Southy Road, Innels Lane and other nearby residents, many not receiving anything. Notifications should be widespread, covering all households in the LGA. Community input has not resulted in any changes on the Richmond side . They've presented us with a fait accompli. No meaningful consultation or discussion. A plan that doesn't clearly achieve Transport's own goals , in particular traffic congestion and travel times. Transport has prioritised their design over the needs and desires of the very people of our community paying for this. They have worn them down, many have left, driven out, little known to the new buyers.

For most, selling is not an option and nor should it be. There is widespread and growing resentment as people learn more about this. The feedback process is unclear to most and there is very little transparency. The information sessions give people the opportunity to vent, diverting people away from the more formal written submissions that are more critical. No options to either decide on the privacy of your submission and / or personal details when published. The process will divide and conquer our community, and

We are here to prevent this. The REF is merely A contracted desktop audit , bureaucrats that do not know our area, driving remote agendas, the dedicated stakeholder group that included key community leaders has been dropped, their time and efforts wasted and no recent communication to re-engage. Our group meetings with Transport are unable to provide real answers or changes to the design, just a single agenda lacking key details. For too long we've endured increasing traffic congestion on the current roads. We all understand the need for a significant upgrade and the project goals are clear. Transport for New South Wales'vision is a reduction in the quality of life for the people of Innels Lane and Southey Road and surrounds, who are expected to bear the brunt of the significant penetrating impacts , including those that can't be mitigated such as vibration and other low frequencies, and it will increase exponentially with further developments in the pipeline.

Please also consider degraded mental health for affected residents and invisible impact of the proposal. Everyone wants a clear solution capable of delivering the levels of traffic now and well into the future. It's our money, public money, and we should be demanding better, more significant traffic benefits for this major corridor. It's a project that has stagnated, wasting funds and prioritising cost cutting over the needs and desires of the very people who will use this new bridge every single day. The risk of new rat runs is unacceptable risks leading to reduced safety for all, especially children and the close proximity of the nearby Hobartville Public School . We'll be trading one headache for another, and I suspect a worse one.

The proposed road leading to Ingle's Lane and even the proposal for Southy Road is essentially the same old beaten track that most of you will be familiar with already . Let's realise the full potential of a fantastic new bridge and a real Richmond bypass. Consider driving across the

Bridge from North Richmond to Richmond on an elevated 1 in 20 flood immune road all the way. Yep. That's — sorry? That's five minutes? Yep. Oh, can I just read one more paragraph to conclude, please? We deserve better, and I urge you all to join me in opposing the draft council response . Let's demand a proper consultation process, a design that respects our heritage character, and an improved route that significantly improves traffic congestion and travel times now and into the future. We need to be

Clear to Transport

For New South Wales that our council is not willing to accept Ingle's Lane and Southy Road

Route. Let's

Build Hawkesbury. Let's build a better future. Thank you. Thank you. Are you prepared to mention any questions? Any councillors with any questions to the speaker ? Councillor? Thanks, Mr Mayor. On Saturday at the community information session at the North Richmond Community Centre, I asked Transport for New South Wales had they had any sessions east of the river, because I know they've had a few and they were planning on doing a couple. There's another one tomorrow west of the river. They told me no, they haven't had any in Hobartville because they've tried to get access to the public school, but it's all essentially too hard. What's your response to that

Would you want them to have a — because I personally, I said to them, you have to have one over the other side of the river, otherwise this is a moot point. Yeah, absolutely. So we, I've been talking to Transport for New South Wales

On behalf of Richmond Bridge Traffic Action Group, and I have offered them a location in Richmond, the Richmond Club. So it's on offer and we can do that. They

Will be

Invited if there

Is no other offer from them on a location in Richmond for another meeting, and it will be more of a forum style with community leaders invited and perhaps politicians and other leaders in the community. Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Darren. That was interesting to get your perspective on this. What we have to make a decision on tonight is our feedback on this REF. And when you were talking, it sort of sounded like you thought council thought everything was all right, and I really have to sort of say to you, significant concerns with the potential for ongoing impacts on residents. Like council is saying that, and that's what we have to... Tonight we can't say, you know, the whole thing's rubbish and it has to be...

That's not going to happen from our point of view. So have you read the response, and are you happy with our response at least? No. So there's a lot of it that is good, and most of it we do, I think, well, I certainly agree with it. The problem is, I think it takes a soft position on the... on what they're doing. And from all the options that were made available, the hybrid Green Route has always been their focus, and there's been no real investigations to other routes. And we prefer something around the yellow route in the historical documents where they show the different options, around that area to link up with the Driftway near Castle Ray Road, where there's a lot of space available. Sorry, I missed that due to the cut-off time.

Yeah, that's okay . But we don't , we vigorously don't want — we want a really good bypass. We want it to decrease travel times, and we do want — we want to keep it away from Inalls Lane and South

E Road because it's inappropriate for a bypass there

Too many impacts. Yeah, okay. Thank you . No worries. Thanks, Sarah. Any further questions? Councillor Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Darren. I get where you're coming from. I know what the position of your group is after the meeting that I attended the other night. There's just two points around that. As Councillor Kotlash just said, we're putting in this about the review of environmental factors at the moment, so there are existing endorsements of certain routes, et cetera, that exist. I'm just wondering, though, of the issue that is currently before us, and as we heard quite an adamant refusal that the route would change by the representative from Transport, is your main issue in that scenario around the fact that the project may be unfinished and that the entire thing isn't being done as it was originally planned? Is that the

Main impact, should the route not be being changed? Is it the preference that nothing goes ahead unless the whole thing goes ahead? Yes, the answer is definitely yes there. So people want, most people that we've talked to in the community want something that's definite, that will be finished and provides benefits. We do have an issue that even when the current proposal is finished, that it will not achieve the desired outcomes for the project. So, I mean, even if they did have all the funding, that would not be — it still wouldn't. That plan is flawed, and we don't think it achieves the goals. So the half job is, and splitting stage 2A and 2B is unacceptable due to the other effects that causes, but also the complete with 2B isn't really the right or best solution to minimise impacts to the community.

In fact, particularly in Ells Lane and the heritage around there and Southleigh Road, due to the secondary impacts on the existing roads very close to the bypass and driveway access, it goes on and on. Flood changes to the water runoff in the area will possibly cause, and they're not quite sure, but they know it will make things worse for Southleigh Road residents, which

We've seen flooding in before. During the last few floods. Could I just ask one more? Sorry, Mr Mayor. Just to clarify then, if what is currently proposed and what is budgeted for, that would mean, though, that there would be a partial project done, and then traffic would go

Onto existing Southy Road. Is that your understanding of it? Yes. We've heard from Transport for New South Wales have said that we'll have an increase of about 3, 000 cars per day. They said they will have a sign that says directing people to go down Castle Ray Road instead. I can't see that happening. It's a dangerous plan that they've put together to link it to Southy Road. It's a rather curve with a stop sign, then a right-hand turn, which will slow down your trip if you're going that way anyway. If you go down Castle Ray Road and the driftway after coming up there, you've lost all your gains in, you know, there's no real gains in your travel time. So it's flawed and we'd rather not see anything if that's it. That's the case where they're just doing either the half job or the full job. It's unacceptable

Thank you . Thank you

Any further

Questions? Thank you. Thank

You. The second speaker is Rod

Alderton. To speak, I am a member of the Richmond Bridge Traffic Action Group and have met with Transport for New South Wales on several occasions. I want to bring to your attention the disaster the new Richmond bypass has become. Due to a funding shortage, the bypass has now been split into two stages. Transport suggested it may add an extra 10 years, 15 years, or never to complete the bypass. Their words, not mine. The additional cost, significant, was the only answer we received . The Richmond end of the bypass will now terminate into Southy Road, a road not suitable for any bypass. That's barely suitable for traffic . The new split proposal will keep 80% of traffic to North Richmond on Kurrajong Road, not including any housing expansion in North Richmond.

Their latest noise and vibration impact assessment indicates that for stages 2A and 2B, 263 buildings are predicted to experience noise levels that exceed the operational road

Traffic noise criteria. Southy Road residents will have their rural outlook replaced with a five metre high noise wall and double glazing. The last flooding included local flooding on Southy Road. The new road will dam that area with no additional drainage. The Ingles Lane area has many issues. There will be no noise wall mitigation due to lack of room. Their proposal brings the road 10 metres closer to homes and destroys multi-generational home along the way. The roundabout. Why is this so large? According to Transport, is so that they can expand it to a two-lane roundabout, probably for the Castlereagh to Bells Line of Road connection. The noise level at the roundabout will exceed the maximum noise level allowed for a new road near a church.

Speed limits in Ingles Lane will be increased from 50 kilometres an hour to an 80 kilometre an hour speed limit, clearly against their own guidelines for a built-up area. But there is one major issue with their proposal which they are very reluctant to deal with and have trouble discussing . And that's Hawkesbury's heritage. A former Transport NSW chief executive on video states, There is a legal and corporate responsibility to manage heritage in a culturally sensitive, appropriate, practical and cost-effective manner, except it seems not if it's in the Hawkesbury. Council submitted a response to Transport in 2021 in regards to heritage, and Council strongly recommended further detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the preferred corridor.

Transport's response: recommendation ignored. Transport's own report says, This report has identified that there is potential for listed heritage items and archaeological resources, works and relics to be subject to physical impacts as a result of the proposal. In Transport's first meeting in April last year at the Mountain View location, a heritage home of high significance, Heritage NSW advised Transport of their responsibilities with regards to heritage, and in particular since the location is of high heritage significance, but not only the listed properly but also the unlisted cultural landscape and the 1820 stock route. The significance was elevated because of its association to William Cox and Governor Macquarie, yet none of the recommendations by Heritage New South Wales were followed or responded to.

Transport could not answer why. If Transport had done any research as required, this route would never have been considered. A business impacts assessment was completed for North Richmond. However, Transport considered that Richmond did not need one. Why? On community consultation, Transport agreed there were zero changes made to any of the proposals based on consultation responses and questions. What will the bypass provide? A highly effect and damaged heritage locations . A bypass to a T intersection on a local road. It creates a 60 metre by 5 metre high crossing over the lowlands, unknown damage to the floodplain. It will divide the community from the rest of Richmond. It provides no crossing path for school children or other pedestrians.

It generates an unacceptable noise level to the community. It increases speed through a built-up area. By the way, Transport was very clear. Any traffic or other issues on Southy Road is Council's responsibility, as is the Drift Road rat run, the Inalls Lane side road, the dirt noise mound, and their hope of pushing the upkeep of the old bridge onto Council. Either provide a proper bypass through one of the many alternative greenfield locations, or return to the 2013 model, which made so much sense and would have been completed by now. All

I can ask

Is that you take it in interest and get this fixed before it's

Too late. Thank you. Would you like to answer any? Any questions? Sure. Councillor [unclear]

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Bron

When you mentioned a five metre

Noise

Wall, that's only if stage 2B is done, isn't it? There is a partial one down on 2A. But for 2B, yes, there's a five metre noise

Wall for the majority of the length

Where they can't put it because of a turn

It'll

Be purely double glazing. Oh, okay, in the houses. Yeah, but in the stage

2B —

2B —

There wouldn't be anything

Put if it was left on Southey Road,

If the additional road isn't built. No, only double glazing the full length. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thanks. Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Thank you very much for coming to talk. That was very interesting. I just wanted to clarify, I missed the number that you said towards the beginning of your

Speech about how

Many houses regarding

Noise levels. 263. Cool. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to get that. Thanks. All good. Thank you. Councillors, before we accept the motion, there's a couple of questions I'd like of the staff. Southey Road Stage 2, what about the intersection of Southey and Castle

Ray Road in Stage 1? Is there any proposals to — sorry, not Castle Ray, Londonderry Road.

Is there any roadworks proposed in that location? Mr Mayor, I'd have

To take that on notice. I can't recall off the

Top of my head. Just, they've got drawing here for stage two, but it doesn't mention stage one. Would someone like to move the recommendation, or Council Wheeler? I'll move that we defer to the next

Council meeting on the 18th of February to amend Council's submission to include further

Issues raised

By the community and councillors this evening. I'll second that, Mr Mayor. Councillor Kotlash, thank you. Is that wording been given to the staff?

Has the staff got the recording of those words? Are all the councillors aware? Definitely. Yeah, okay. To add the issues that the community have raised. Councillor Creed. Just, can I just check

What — a couple of questions. I just wanted

To confirm with council staff, when I spoke to

It's

A question, Councillor Creed, because if

Oh,

I just wanted to ask a question. Yeah, okay. Just ask the general

Question's fine. So transport for —

Oh no, it's

About the actual — Council Wheeler.

Thanks,

Mr Mayor. Firstly, I want to thank the two speakers for coming in. It's extraordinarily difficult, I think, when you're faced with something like this that impacts on your home and your quality of life, and it's really disempowering for it to have been going on for several years for the — And to feel like you're sort of holding up the rest of the community, I suppose. You know, there's lots of, if you look online, there's lots of people saying, you know, let's just get this done. This will be great. But what we've got here is a group of people around in Hobartville particularly, and parts of Richmond, who are getting all the impacts and none of the benefits of this road. And really, as representatives of the community, we need to make sure that Transport for New South Wales really hears that.

This is our second vexed bridge over the Hawkesbury, and I hope it doesn't descend into the sort of divisiveness and name-calling that the Windsor Bridge did. We've heard tonight from our speakers about the lack of notification, and I think a very good point about the community sessions being used as a bit of a distraction from actual submissions. People feel like they've had a vent and someone has listened, and unless they've put something in writing, Transport for New South Wales doesn't have that on record to influence the decision. We've also heard a real lack of faith in the process and any changes, and that's unsurprising given what we have. When we first started consulting on this project, and I was a member of that community consultation group as the chair of Council's Heritage Advisory Committee, we asked for two things.

We asked for improved access during times of flood and traffic improvement. And what we're seeing with this staged process is neither of those things. There's no point having a big high-level bridge if the approach roads to it aren't improved, or if they're on the never-never. If we're waiting for 10 or 15 years Where people are expected to drive across Redbank Creek and to get onto this new bridge via the Driftway and Southy Road, then there is negligible improvement to flood-free access from what we already have. There is no benefit for traffic, and in fact any benefit that's felt by people on the bridge itself will all be borne by the residents of Hobartville and surrounding streets. The impacts on heritage, I think, are really concerning, and

I would like us to revisit council submission in September 2021 that talked about the impacts on heritage. The state heritage register number for Mountain View is incorrect. It's 44, not 34. The statement of heritage impacts only relates to noise treatment.

There's no mitigation for the building itself. We know from the experience of Thompson Square, those buildings, which are actually younger buildings than Mountain View, that the effects of vibration and settlement on buildings with lime mortar are really deleterious. Still, I think I would like to see us expand the information about the Macquarie era sightlines and the importance of those sightlines and the links between residential land and agricultural land in the Macquarie era settlement, as well as making mention of the 1820 stock route and the links between Cox and Macquarie and also the impacts on the pre-Macquarie landscape. But what really, really needs to be expanded is the impacts on the Southy Road residents.

We're talking about a peri-urban community road that is currently a 50-kilometre zone. The vehicle movements are staggering: an additional 3, 000 cars a day on a road that council — They can't maintain at this point. There is no benefit here for Southy Road residents. They are victims of this so-called progress. The issue with Redbank Creek that's mentioned in the submission is not just the width, but also the height. We're just going to have a flood island if that part of Bells Line of Road isn't raised. The increased potential for development is , I think, rapidly increased when this project starts. We've already heard from Transport for New South Wales that they've never seen so many planning proposals for west of the river.

Surprise, surprise. That's exactly where we're headed. I find the

Second paragraph under the strategic context really ambiguous with the potential to open up Bells Line of Road. Is that what we really want? Do we want to be a freeway to the Central West? Thank

You, Councillor

Councillor Godley. Thank you, Mr Mayor. The reason I agreed that we should postpone this is, well, there's a lot of reasons, but the

Big ones are that when I was reading this document and trying to figure out why they've run out of money and we're staging it like this, it seemed to me that we could probably, if this is going to happen and this bridge is going to be built, that we have it done in three stages. And I'd like to ask Transport for New South Wales why.

You can't split it into another stage. Have the residents of Southy Road and Hobartville and around there. If we can get money from some sort of different funding bodies to be able to do that and not have to wait till we get money for the work that needs to be done on Bells Line of Road. Although I know there are businesses and I know that people are also impacted. But not — I agree with Councillor Wheeler. The people of Hobartville seem to be copping this. And I think that this is a tough one

Because this project's been so long in the pipeline and, you know, if we don't get this, we might never get anything. So I won't go on

Because there's details and we can discuss this in a briefing session. But I think in our submission, we might just put it to them that they actually start thinking about the residents of the Hawkesbury and the people that this is impacting. And I think we can make that stronger. I commend the staff for this report. I read it and I thought it was good. It's strong in places. We don't have much of a choice. This is not our baby. We're only going to be able to make this submission, and hopefully somebody might listen to us. You know, you've done a lot of work on this. We did the submission in 2021,

And now again, we're here again. Thanks to the staff for doing that, but I'm happy to have another session of trying to make it much more — I think remind Transport for New South Wales that there's a lot of people that are, you know, are going to be impacted by this. Thanks. Thank you , Councillor . Councillor Brogden. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

This is the incredibly shrinking

The incredible shrinking

Project. I liken this to, you know, being offered a bus , and because this isn't our purchase , it's other tiers of government, we're simply asked, What colour do you want? And then when they come back to us later and they say, We can't give you a bus, we'll give you a minibus, but what colour would you like? And now it's like, Would you like a scooter? But what colour would you like? And I think it's incumbent on us, if you'll understand the analogy, to say , Well, can I question the premise of your question? We were promised a bus. Let's be clear. In its earlier incarnation, we were promised a significant flood-free bridge that looped around the back of North Richmond, that wouldn't dump the traffic back into the main street of Richmond, that would provide real relief for congestion for people coming along Bells Line of Road, Grose Vale Road, and the Terrace Road, that it would account for population growth for decades to come, and that there would be some degree of foresight, considering that we only make this decision less than one century.

The first bridge was built in 1860, and it was built by private subscription, I might add, and then sold to the government for £ 7, 000. If we only make a decision like this that frequently, it's incumbent on us to get it right. And, of course, until very recently, this was promised as an extra bridge that would add to the capacity, not as a replacement bridge. The reason I'm supporting Councillor Wheeler's motion for us to defer is to seek further clarification on a number of points. For example, Our submission currently doesn't hold the feet of Transport for New South Wales to the fire about the status of the old bridge. If the old bridge is going to be decommissioned as a vehicular bridge, then there may be a desire to foist that asset on us, even if it's going to be used for pedestrian or cyclists or something like that.

Because if it's not a vehicular bridge, Transport for New South Wales might say it's got nothing to do with us. I'd rather see a written affirmation from Transport for New South Wales that they won't try and foist that asset on us. We don't want it, and we couldn't afford its upkeep anyway. You would never build a hospital without a

Car park. You would never build a railway network — That's a bad analogy. Well, perhaps

The fact that they

Do rather proves my point. You would never build a railway network without making some accommodation for stabling yards. The point that I'm making is that this project is of a piece. You can't build a bridge and not the approach roads. That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard. And I think we need to apply maximum political pressure. I note, and I welcome, the federal member's media release yesterday, but that isn't a commitment for funding. That's simply a recognition that this is a political hot potato with a federal election coming and that she will work with. But rather than blaming the previous Liberal government, which the federal member attempts to do, the responsibility for this project currently sits with the current state government and the current federal government.

It's up to them to make a commitment to fully fund this with no delay between stages 2A and 2B. And even though this has little to do with Council, I think the community rely on us to make that representation forcibly. And one hopes, considering that this is still a, you know, a tight seat, that the other potential major party that wants to form government will make a similar commitment, so that there's parity and that this doesn't become a shouting match in the way that other things have. I'm disappointed that this dumps the traffic back into the main street of North Richmond. I'm disappointed that stage 2B has been severed. I'm disappointed that the initial figures that some residents are telling me that they'd received from Transport for New South Wales will take traffic on Mulder Avenue from 190 to 477 vehicles per hour, or 377 to 600, so doubling, doubling the traffic for a residential street that has to be maintained by Council with a school on it.

What a genius idea that isn't. Yeah, we need to be as

Forceful as we can . Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to, one of the questions that I was going to ask, and Councillor Zampronio just raised it. When I was at the information session on Saturday at the community centre in North Richmond, I asked the, I can't remember his name, I think he's the lead manager on the project, what was going on with the bridge, the second, like, you know, when it's decommissioned, it becomes a pedestrian and bicycle bridge. Who is going to be responsible for that? Council or Transport for New South Wales? Both he and another one of his offsiders said to me that they didn't want it, but they understand Council doesn't want it, so they will take responsibility and they'll pay for the maintenance and all that sort of stuff.

They told me that it is in writing to Council staff. That it's going to be Transport for New South Wales responsibility. Can I just get staff to

Actually confirm that? Through you, Mr Mayor, yes, that's correct. Transport for New South Wales have provided us with the draft maintenance strategy for ownership and maintenance of the assets post-construction, and the old bridge, which would then be an active Transport link, remains with Transport for New

South Wales. So Council will have no responsibility on the upkeep, the cost, or anything like that. If something happens on that bridge, Council is not responsible; it is a Transport

For New South Wales. For the

Bridge structure , that's correct. Right. Mr Mayor, I just wanted to ask if possible, if Councillor Wheeler, I don't know whether we can do it as part of this motion, just to add, yes, we're deferring it, but can we also just add a point that can Council write to Transport for New South Wales to organise an information session either in Hobart or Richmond

As per the first speakers? If we can do that, just to sort of give the community a bit more oomph with trying to

Get an information session east of the river.

The question's at you on the 21st. Yeah, we can still say — can you

Organise it? It's not that hard to organise. We're up to session, Councillor Greed. Councillor write

To Transport New South Wales to organise a session. Yep, at the Richmond Club,

As offered by the community. You've got the

Venue and everything? Yep. Well, as the first speaker, he said it's there, ready to go. This might

Just add some weight to the community. I don't know whether it's appropriate that we tell them where they need to

Have it, I think. Well, in Richmond or Hobartville , that's fine. Yeah, I'm just saying that, you know, it's not hard

To organise an information session. Mr Mayor, can I suggest that Council write to Transport for New South Wales to organise a session

For residents, for — East of the river. We know what that means there, necessarily, for Hobart, for residents, for Hobartville and surrounds. Yeah,

And surrounds. Yep.

Before —

Should we

Do before the ARIA, or just, it won't happen, I know, but one can live in hope. I'm happy with that change too,

Mr Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Creed. Councillor

McMahon. Thank you, Mr

Mayor. I will just put on the record, because I'm going to also have my two cents about the route and what the bridge delivers to the community. But I just want to make it very clear that what we were supposed to be voting on tonight was this document here, which was an attachment to the item, which we are now deferring, and I'm glad that we are deferring, and I will be supporting Councillor Wheeler's motion to defer. But I did also want to champion some of the comments raised by Councillor Kotlash about the fact that the staff have put some very strong wording in the current proposal, and I'm glad that we are going to meet to make it even stronger. I just wanted to put on the record, for those who haven't read the submission, the really strong language that Council has used about this project, language like significant concern for the ongoing impacts, seeking an indication of what the costs are, impacts to Council-controlled roads such as Southy Road, the potential for congestion as a consequence of the proposal, that Council is deeply concerned about delay.

However, this is an important one, I'll read the whole point. And I'd speak on this a little bit later. However, the assessment of the project against the resilient valley, resilient communities Hawkesbury Nepean Valley Flood Risk Management Strategy is still considered to require further assessment. To ensure disaster resilience and that flood risk management is at the forefront of all infrastructure planning decisions, Council urges the assessment of this project against this strategy. Now, I said it on the record here before, and I'll say it again. This was supposed to be originally a bridge that solved traffic congestion. When I announced the funding with the Prime Minister back in 2019 for $ 250 million, that route of the bridge was supposed to be based on the advocacy of the late John Miller.

And everybody in this room knows who John Miller is and what he wanted was a high point to high point from North Richmond to Richmond. When I got the call from one of the ministers that the funding was coming through, he was the very first property that I went and visited, and he has passed away now, but I have that video on my phone of telling him of that funding, and it's very special. Unfortunately , by the time 2022 came around and I was the federal candidate again, an announcement was made greatly to double the investment to half a billion dollars, something I'm very proud to have had a hand in delivering to this community. However, let's — I'm just going to say it as it is now. I'm absolutely in my fearless era right now.

I found out about the Green route the day before the announcement was made. I was not happy with the Green route, and if you go and look at the wording, I said throughout that period, I never once said I was happy with the Green route. I spoke about the merits of the Green route as advocated by Transport for New South Wales. Now, I am not a road engineer. I'm not going to pretend I am. At the time, I had to go through a learning journey of what that route was supposed to be based on what the engineers had said it would deliver to this community. Eight floods later, a couple of which after I was the mayor in 2022, and seeing the impacts it had on this community, the current proposal is not okay.

We are here today listening to people in this community, residents who are concerned with the impacts of the current proposal. And I am sorry, it is now turned into something that doesn't have enough funding, and this is the result of both the state and Labor federal government getting involved and messing the whole thing up when it was not supposed to look like this. It was supposed to be something that delivered results to this community where we could be proud of a new connection over the Hawkesbury River, something that for the taxpayer funds, money that's comes out of your pocket when you pay tax, was going to be of a benefit to this community. Councillor Wheeler touched on before that she hoped that this bridge did not turn into a name-calling scenario like the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project did.

I'm sure Councillor Wheeler is well aware of the creation of the Facebook page Hawkesbury Matters and what that did with name-calling to certain members in this community, predominantly myself, that I was apparently constantly in bed with Chinese developers where they cut my head off and put it on the body of a Chinese woman. So to say that this has not, or they are now the owners of the Hawkesbury Post, let me just put on the record, they must be very proud. Thank you. I'm absolutely talking about the bridge and how the Facebook chatter in this community started with a very disgraceful Facebook page. But what matters now is the community. What matters is the concerns that the community bring to the table for us as 12 elected councillors in this room to actually talk about and advocate for .

As I said, the proposal put together already by our staff is very, very strong, and I've highlighted some really strong words that have been used. But I do look forward to being part of the situation where we can make it stronger. Sorry, I can't see my timer up here. I don't know how long I've got left. Thank you very much. So what we need to make sure that as a group, we are putting forward an even stronger submission to the REF, to Transport for New South Wales, telling them that this is not what our community wants, that after eight floods, flood resilience is absolutely at the forefront of all of our minds. And of course, making sure that those impacts to the communities along the current route do not eventuate to cause negativity and distress to the residents'lives.

So thank you for the opportunity to make this stronger. I look forward to that. But I really do want to just stress again that this isn't Council saying they do or don't agree with the route. It's saying what their concerns are. And I really hope that the stronger document that we deliver puts forward a really strong case to Transport for New South Wales.

Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support the deferral of this. I think this is another one of those instances where literally the community waits for decades in this case, and then suddenly something's foisted upon them, and it's just not what people anticipated or it's lacking some sort of clarity. And I think that it's unfortunate that the submissions are due so soon. But even just from what's come out tonight, there's a number of other things that maybe can be considered. In particular, what I would like to see is, and I don't know if this has been done, whether any costing's been done on our part about just what the additional traffic on the existing Southey Road, in the absence of 2B going ahead, just what sort of an impact that would be on our roads budget.

I'm imagining quite significant. And whether Transport for New South Wales, in the absence of a completed project, would they be offering any form of maintenance contribution for our local roads? I note that already Yarramundi Lane is under significant pressure because it's designated through the arrows directing traffic along it, that it is basically a major route to Penrith. And I know that our ratepayers bear the brunt of paying for that to be repeatedly, you know, upgraded. It's really important that as a council, like, we're obviously not going to make a decision, and the Transport for New South Wales reps the other night were very adamant the route would not change. I asked them, was that a political decision?

They said no, it was a decision that had been made. They were under the impression that this council had endorsed that route, but I can't find that anywhere. I know we asked for options for something in 2021 when Councillor Calvert had raised it about not going round North Richmond but going through it, and that was all I could see. But I also thank the staff for preparing a submission. It's not an easy task. When we know in projects like this that along the line someone is always going to be impacted, regardless of where it goes. But it's really important for us to understand the full impacts from our council perspective, as well as from our residents'perspective. But of course, the residents also have to lobby the other levels of government, who in fact have more decision-making power than us in this particular instance.

But from our point of view, we cannot be supporting anything that will give a major burden on ratepayers into the future. And it is also my concern with the Gross River Bridge that that is going to occur. I think that thanking the speakers for raising that, I understand how they feel. I really get it . It's, I know that they would rather a new route altogether, but in the absence of that, if this were to proceed, the people of one section of one part of our town are going to have an enormous burden placed upon them. And it is just a situation that really I would be very sad to see. Of course, everyone's hopeful that there would be more money to complete the entire project. But in the absence of that, there would also be another opportunity, and I asked Transport for New South Wales about this.

And that would be if the bridge section were to proceed and there was a four-lane bridge built, but there was not the accompanying infrastructure on each side, the upgrades needed, that would then give them a situation where they would actually have some live data on what was actually happening with the traffic coming off the bridge, and an opportunity perhaps to refine what they've proposed. Because even though there's not the money, I gather that the entire thing is being locked in. I may be wrong on that, but from what they told me, the entire thing was being locked in now. And I think that's a really missed opportunity for us in the future to look and say, well, hang on, that really isn't going to work.

Now we see we've got a big bridge here, and I know nothing about bridges either, so I don't know if this is making any sense at all. But if there's a bridge there and then there's people funneling off it, at least if it was there, we would know. Stop laughing, Councillor Creed. We would know, you know, we could learn from it. It's almost as if it has to be a fluid thing if we're to get the best results for our people. So I had a lot to say about it. I'll probably save it until the bridge submission comes back. But, you know, we know it's a much needed upgrade. We know it's one of our major connections from both sides of the river, and that it is currently beyond capacity. Although I have — I have to say there's been significant improvements since COVID, or from what I've observed.

And from when Colo High School changed their hours of operation, the morning bottlenecks are not as bad. Is that a final dong or a part way? Okay. I think that we , you know, it's something that is needed to improve things in the area, but it's only really going to rectify what we've got now, the problems we've got now. It's not really building for the future, and I think that we, as Councillor Sanbrano said, if we're doing something that is so infrequent and we're only deciding upon, you know, once every couple of centuries or something, it's a shame to see something time restrained in having to get in a fast submission after waiting, waiting, waiting for so long. With regard to the flood resilience, not only regarding what a bridge would look like and the roads off it would look like, but I haven't seen any information that actually details what the impacts of introducing more structures into a floodplain is going to look like.

So they're talking — nearly finished — they're talking about building up embankments and things like that. We know that Penrith Lakes is bringing in fill and building it up. What's all this going to do to our floodplain? So there's a lot more to actually look at. I don't know how we can look at that in two weeks, but we can give it a go

And I support the deferral. Thank you. Councillor Creed, you had a question before. Yeah, no, I just want to briefly speak to it, because I know we'll be coming back to this at the next meeting. I just wanted to raise a point that Councillor Lyons-Buckett just mentioned about talking to Transport for New South Wales about the two different sections and the fact that the bridge gets built is stage 2B locked in stone. That's going to be the design. And by the sounds of it, you were told, Oh yeah, pretty much it's locked in. So when I asked on Saturday, they were a bit wishy-washy and were like, Oh, well, yes, oh no. And I said, Well, hang on, what happens if you do 2B and then, you know, it gets changed because, okay, that's not going to work down the track; you need to do it this way.

Oh, well, yes, that could be changed. My issue with Transport for New South Wales and the state and federal governments is that there's no clarity on the information they're providing, especially when it comes to 2B. The fact that they've put this out, and 2B, there is no funding announced, what it's actually going to cost, I think is unacceptable. There's no timeline on when they think that 2B is actually going to be completed. To me, I just think if you're going to put something like this out there in the public, you need to actually have it fully costed and a proper timeline. My issue with splitting it into the two stages without having funding and a timeline for the second stage is that are they going to build stage 2A and then there's no funding available for the next 10, 20, 30 years, and all you've got is this half-a-billion-dollar white elephant, literally a bridge to nowhere.

So it's just, to me, it's unacceptable that Transport for New South Wales and the state and federal government have put this out without any sort of costing or timeline on it to give the community any sort of answers for the second stage of this project. So I'll speak more on it at the next meeting, but I just needed to get that out there because I just — To me, this is just amateur hour.

Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just before, I'd ask the question to the staff in relation to Southy Road, the comment that was made by Councillor Lyons-Buckett in relation to costing. Would we normally get additional funds considered as supposed to be a temporary proposal, for instance, with works like that, or would it fall on Council for those works? Through you,

Mr. Mayor, there's a number of options that we could look at, from direct funding through to a review of the classification of Southy Road, which would open it up for regional road funding. We haven't had the opportunity yet to understand what the implications or costs might be. Thank you. Yep,

Just for clarification,

Councillor Feigl. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Look, I'm not going to labour the point, but I absolutely support this motion, and I think Council's brought it up and the speakers have spoken to it. I always thought state and federal governments sort of take the responsibility to protect their citizens and plan accordingly. Clearly, this is another example where they don't. I thought when you're going to build a bridge and you could future-proof it like they did the Harbour Bridge in'32, when you've got eight lanes today and it's stunk quite well, you could possibly come out to the Hawkesbury and future-build a bridge that looks after all the concerns which have been raised in this place today: flood mitigation , future safety , looking after our community. I guess 2B

Is in excess of $ 200 million, and don't tell me they haven't got the money, because of course they've got the money, right ? To suggest that they haven't, this is a job lot going to nowhere. They will build the bridge, and what do we do at Bells Line of Road? Now we've got it over Red Creek, then we've got a flimsy two-lane bridge, which is a choke point to the creek. That should be looked after; that route's going to go there . So I guess we haven't got a great deal of time, but — You know, I was in a conference many years ago and there was a bloke got up and said, Oh, well, we've got to sit to the CEO, we've got a roadmap and we've got milestones to get this project done. The CEO put him down and said, You only use that type of thing if you're lost.

Well, guess what? Traffic NSW and the state and the federal governments are lost. I suggest that they go and draft a roadmap with significant milestones, Mr Mayor. Get the money and get the job done right. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any speakers against the motion? I just,

I haven't commented on the bridge in the past, and I know that the community require access across the river. And the concerns that all the councillors have brought up, and I'm glad they've been brought up. To fix one problem and create a bigger one, there's an expectation. Southy Road's been a bit of a link road, I guess, between Castle Ray and, but it's minor traffic flow. To impose that alone, and the floodplain issues that have been brought up, with the floods we have normally, what's been proposed across the floodplain wouldn't have a great bearing on it. But between the heights of 14 and 16 metres, it would be massive. It would. I haven't seen the detail of it apart from the first one that was put out.

The flow paths of flow across the floodplain, it's only in a couple of places through conduits, and the rest would be directed and dammed to go through where the two bridges are. That's asking for trouble. And because the floods would be higher than the ones we would have, the debris that would come down there would be horrendous. New ground, new stuff, you know. So I think there's a lot of things. I, like everyone, would like to see a good access across the river. But I'm certainly glad for the councillors who've spoken and the ones that haven't spoken, that I believe support those comments. And we'll see what we can do leading to the meeting of the 18th. If there's

No further discussions, Councillor Whelan. Thanks, Mr Mayor. So, look, I think the moral of this story really is be careful what you wish for. We were promised a bypass and we got offered a dogleg, and now we've got the world's shortest freeway between two bottlenecks up the guts of two key towns. This is the very opposite of a bypass, just as it's the opposite of a traffic solution for the people who are stuck on either side of this mess. I think this discussion has been really helpful, and I hope that the staff can tie that together. Some of the things that I think that have come out of this that are important are the lack of clarity and the lack of time frame and costing around Stage 2B, and this statement from Transport for New South Wales to members of the community, ‘ 10 to 15 years or never, ’ and that the additional cost is significant.

Well, I think we need a better answer than that. That's — that's really not, and I understand that we're talking to bureaucrats who don't run the state budget, but that's still not acceptable. It's the bureaucrats who have delivered the project as the project plans as they are, so it behoves us, I think, to not leave it at that point. Other things that have come out, I think, or have not been said, that are in the submission are the stuff around urban greening. Look, frankly, no amount of urban greening is going to offset the damage that this road is about to do. A few trees along the edges isn't going to fix the impacts of this road. We heard from — and I thought this was a really powerful statement — this is a bypass to a T intersection on a rural road that divides the community.

I think that is something that we really need to hear and that the state and federal government and their representatives really need to hear as well. So if that could be included in the submission, I think that would be helpful. We've also heard mention of fill on the floodplain, which we're told is a big no-no, which we're told residents is a big no-no. We were told when we were investigating Windsor that there were two reasons that we couldn't have a bypass: that we couldn't put any fill on the floodplain, and then the other thing that we were told was that we couldn't have two bridges side by side. And oh, lo and behold, if you shuffle them up the river a little bit, you can do whatever you like.

No wonder the community has no faith in this project. I think what we really need is

An unambiguous statement from Council. I'd like us to be able to include some road maintenance estimates, if possible. I understand that that is more work for — For the staff. This came to us in a briefing last week, and some councillors gave their input in that briefing, and the submission was greatly strengthened in the week in between the briefing and now, and I thank the staff for that. What we're asking for now, I think, is for this further discussion to be included so that we can put a much more unambiguous statement. We are not happy, it would appear, with a bridge that is just a bridge. This project needs to be completed, or it needs to be off the table. It's because the impacts of the community without the completion are too great for the benefits that one part of the community will get over the impacts on the other.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. What you're voting on is on your screen in front of you. Those

In favour? Against? Carried. Councillor Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon, Councillor Dogramaci sustained, Councillor Sheather for.

Thank you, councillors.

Thank you, Councillors. We've got exception reports. There's four of them. Move those, Mr Mayor. Those items are 10. 4. 2, 10. 4. 3 , 11. 1. 1, and I think the first one was 10. 4. 1. We have a mover

Councillor Creed.

Sorry, Councillor Lines-Buckett. All those in favour? Against? Carried. Councillor Bogdo, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Weigel, Rigel, Councillor Dogmarchi

The motion sustained is carried and, myself. pushed support

The next item

Is

Community Justice Centre, 12. 1.

1. I'll second it,

Mr Mayor. I'll move the motion in the business paper,

Mr Mayor. It was moved by

Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett

Councillor

Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, this is a fairly unambiguous notice of motion. Councillors were all contacted, I think , by the new President of Local Government for New South Wales, Councillor Phyllis Miller, asking for support for LG New South Wales'position against the closure

Of community justice centres. The community justice centres provide mediation and dispute resolution for any member of the public who needs it, but

They're also extensively used by councils. They're a free service, they're confidential, and they're voluntary. People engage with them voluntarily, which often means that it's easier to achieve a resolution. They exist close to where people live, which means that people don't have to have lengthy commutes to areas that they don't know, where they might feel intimidated or have other difficulties, have to arrange childcare, all of those things. They assist around 10, 000 residents annually. The New South Wales Attorney General has announced that they will close community justice centres and repeal the Community Justice Centre legislation on the 30th of June. There will be an in-house court mediation service, but there are no details of that at this point.

So New South Wales residents will instead have to seek expensive private mediation or court action, which many can't afford. Unlike the adversarial court process , community justice centres use mediation to build goodwill. Instead of a neighbourhood dispute escalating to a court room or a court process, it can be solved in a much more low-key setting at a community justice centre. And often these unresolved disputes escalate, which puts pressure on the police force. It increases the incidence of apprehended violence orders. It increases mental and physical stress, and it puts pressure on courts and health services, which increase taxpayer costs. The Attorney General says that there are alternatives to community justice centres.

There aren't. One of the alternatives that I think the Attorney General is relying on is councils solving these neighbourhood disputes, because often that's the first point of call, is that people will approach council. Councils in the past have referred people to community justice centres and use that service that's free to both council and to the people involved. There's been no consultation with either the local government sector or with the community. In 2022-23, the community justice centres resolved 79 per cent of mediated neighbourhood disputes. That's an extraordinary figure. I wish our satisfaction rating was that high. There are three principles, I think, here . Justice should be available to everyone, regardless of their means or their postcode.

The And best time to resolve a dispute is before it escalates to an adversarial court system. And no level of government should remove a valued and necessary public service without consultation and without providing a viable alternative. And here instead we have those three things not happening. So I hope that you can support this notice of motion, that we can contact the local member, but also the Attorney General, telling them of our dissatisfaction with this process, asking the local member to advocate,

And also passing on our decision to support

Local Government New South Wales in their efforts. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm speaking against this motion. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a storm in a teacup. One of the things that I've noticed about all the things that Councillor Willer said is they're all assumptions . There's not a lot of fact being provided in this notice of motion. My understanding is that There's not — there's the same services of mediation will still be available. It's just that it won't be under the guise of the Community Justice Centres, per se. But it's still — there is no suggestion that people of New South Wales are going to be without the services of mediation.

It is an important component of our legal system. The thought that it's going to clog the courts is just a throwaway line. It may not. It — I think that having mediation within the justice system will, in fact, could lead to more efficient processes when matters do escalate, and they do escalate from time to time. So you can sort of, you can flip this on its head, and without any data or any actual evidence to suggest that this is going to impact on our community, I can't support this. The only possible point in this motion I could support is actually write to the Department of Communities and Justice and request we have some data. That would be useful. Then I will look at this question. If we have, if in fact we have loads and loads of people using this particular service, and it is going to be, in fact, all funneled into the city, well maybe that's something that we can talk about.

But at this stage, we don't know that. So this is just another of these things that gets brought up like it's, you know, we're all going to hell in a handbasket. I mean. Sorry, I just need a little bit more evidence and some facts to make a decision about this. At the moment, I am not going to support this. This is just finding a problem to wave around. Thank you. Yeah, thank you , Councillor Costello. Before any other councillor speaks, I'll just make a comment. I've

Attended, whenever I could, the conference of local government, and Phyllis Miller OAM is now the chair I've of that organisation. The professionalism and the discussions that happen at that conference, it goes on for three days normally, she would not, and all of us got the letter from a couple of weeks ago, that she would not have read that letter if it wasn't the will

Of the conference. Not saying that we discussed it at the last conference. That would be on the books where they repeatedly have, and when I say local government, that's every council in New South Wales has got the opportunity to speak for or against motions that's put to the conference, and if it wasn't supported, she would not have written the letter. I can tell you that. So the comments and the information that's in the document, and whether there had lived that was indicated by Councillor Wheeler, I am sure that what's provided by that service, the justice services there, is well used by the people who do use it and supported by the majority of local governments in this state. Just to clarify where that letter come from and I'd encourage Councillor Wheeler to put that motion forward.

Further discussion? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support this notice of motion. It's something that concerns me very much. It's another barrier to people accessing, you know, a legal service that exists that has served this community very well for over 40 years. I think that any reduction in numbers of people attending community justice

Centres is more because of the staff cuts

Over past years, of the number of mediators going from 200 down to 65, and I think that that in turn has probably diminished the number of people who could access it. There's a very important part of mediation, and I am a mediator. I'm a nationally accredited mediator, or was when I practised, and it is a specific setting and a specific process that people go through when they're accessing this sort of dispute resolution. And this type of dispute resolution is particularly suited to things that may cross over into the council domain, so neighbourhood disputes, various things about access to properties, and that type of issue that we see. This also, of course, community justice centres deal with other relationship with apprehended violence order applications and other things, but there's a whole component of what they do that would really impact on us and potentially give us more of a burden of having to deal with it.

My personal opinion, and for the last 13 years I've raised this on multiple occasions, was that councils could benefit very much from having in-house mediation. I think that having an in-house mediator would assist with many things that councils come up against, and it could serve the community very well. It's mediation being a particularly good tool in circumstances where there has to be an ongoing relationship, so neighbourhoods in particular. And the main advantage of it, of course, being that in a mediation, the mediator is not an arbiter. The mediator doesn't make the decision. The people make the decision themselves. So there's the element of ownership around a mediated agreement. That means that both parties have actually worked together to come to an agreement.

So the way that Community Justice Centres delivered that was in an appropriate setting that was able to give people the maximised experience around that. And the alternative is, I believe, you know, that people going into other departments or community legal centres and other places is not quite the same thing. And it is, you know, you see in various council documents that it will say if people are having a dispute about trees, then they are to approach the Community Justice Centre. It's the port of call for people who are trying to access that type of assistance to solve a problem. And really what we want to see in this society is a proactive approach to solving a problem before it becomes so adversarial, before it goes into the court system, where it can often become very expensive and also very traumatic, even more traumatic for people.

So giving people ownership over being able to work towards the solution is a highly advantageous part of what this mediation service delivers. So I think when governments are, you know, thinking about cutting funds — It's very sad to see if they are cut in a way that impacts on people who are vulnerable or socio-economically disadvantaged. But it's also not really where you make, you know, is that the first thing you cut? Something where people are accessing something to justice. I think that, you know, there'd be other areas of government spending, sorry, that may occur that could actually give us a better outcome. So I support certainly making our point made to the Attorney General. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a quick question, and I know the staff may not have the answer. Is there any indication of how many people we refer as a council to

These centres, just roughly, broadly

Speaking? Through you, Mr Mayor, we don't have the data on it. Certainly anecdotally, through teams like our planning and our regulatory teams, who are often at the front line of fence disputes, tree disputes,

Those sorts of things, are inclined to refer people to the service. But we wouldn't have that data on hand. But I would say it's probably not infrequently. Thank you, General Manager. Just briefly, I'm really torn as to what to do on this one because as a practising lawyer currently right now, I don't want to go on the record for

Or against when I don't have enough information . In this circumstance, I'm hearing one argument that they're closing, but I'm hearing another argument that they're morphing into some other sort of department or something like that. And I don't have the information in front of me . And again, because this is my area of work, I don't want to be on the record one way or the other when I just don't have the information. I feel like I'm going to have to abstain from this one because I just don't know. If I'm getting told it's actually not going anywhere, it's just changing into something else, I need to go and investigate that for myself so that I'm properly on the record in terms of being in the litigation space. Thank you. Any further debate? Councillor Dijuric. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I fully support the motion. I don't care whether it's one person or a

Thousand people. If

We are trying to assist,

Help and look after any individual , it doesn't matter the background , colour, skin or whatever. If we are going to assist one individual, that's enough for me. And I will support Councillor Wheeler all the way and anything else I could do, I am here to assist. Thank you. Thank you , Councillor. Just to clarify, apart from supporting what's been requested by the president of the local government association, it's not costing us anything

It's a view that she's asked us to consider in relation to supporting it. So while we support it, it's a personal decision of you councillors to support or not the motion. Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I think there might be a little bit of confusion. I'm not sure

We're not

Talking about litigation here. We're talking about mediation. The whole point of the community justice centres is to keep people out of the court system, so to keep it well before it gets to a litigation point. This is a genuine area of concern for people with social disadvantage and for people in rural and regional areas. And it's unsurprising, I think, that this has come to us from Councillor Miller or Mayor Miller. And look, Phyllis and I have known each other for eight years. We've agreed exactly twice in that time. Once about improved support for flooded communities after her community was flooded not long after ours, and on this. So the rest of the time, Phyllis and I can usually be seen glaring or growling at each other across the conference floor. The whole point of this is to put people in a safe space that is not a

Court, not an adversarial system, a more relaxed space where everyone feels like they are equal , a level playing field to reach an agreement. The courts do not provide that experience for anybody who has had a previous experience with the police or with a court. The courts are a place of judgment. They don't function well as a place of mediation. What we've got from the Attorney General about replacing these is just a glib comment that there will be a new in-house court mediation service. That's not sufficient detail. Councillor Kotlash has said she doesn't have enough detail to support this. I would argue that there isn't enough detail in the replacement not to support this. We simply don't understand, don't know what the state government has got planned, and they're closing the service in July.

We're already in February. What are people supposed to do? What are councils supposed to do? What are people in dispute supposed to do? Will it just be the people who can afford the lawyer who win these arguments? Will everybody else just have to put up or shut up? That's what mediation provides people who don't easily walk into a courtroom or walk into a lawyer's office expecting justice. Because for many people, courts are not a place where justice is handed out. Community justice centres provide a viable, successful alternative , and we should support them. Thanks

Councillor Wheeler.

I'll put the motion as printed on page 73. Those in favour ? Councillor Brogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan , Jurek, Councillor McMahon — sorry, I'll go back around — Councillor Creed , Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Ogarmachi, Councillor Sheather. Those

Against? Councillor Kotlash, Councillor McMahon abstaining . The next item.

The next item is item 14. 1. 1, response to Councillor's question.

If there's going to be discussion on it, would someone like to move that the information be received? Councillor Creed. Councillor Reardon

Councillor —

Yep. Councillor Djuric, you

Had your light on. Councillor Creed, did you want to speak on the matter? No. Okay. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've

Got a couple of questions through you, if I could. On the gas lamp matter, does the DCCEEW specifically reference gas lamps in the calculations? Through you, we'd have to take that on notice

Councillor. Through you, Mr Mayor, do we know — do

We even know what the manufacturer's specs are on gas consumption for these specific lamps? Our work in ascertaining the gas utilisation is off the bills

Not the specs of the gas lamps themselves. On the response to that matter, I can't work out how

We got to 4, 100 tonnes. I think Councillor Veigel, and along with myself, we'd like to know — I mean, we're answering to the fact that we're saying that 4, 100 tonnes of CO2 is produced by them lamps, but I can't argue that I can't explain it. I can't put that response into a calculator to work out how we're going. To backtrack on 4, 100 tonnes on 24 lamps, works out like 400 megajoules an hour. Like, we've got farms out here that are doing weed reduction with flamethrowers that work at 100 kilojoules an hour less, or megajoules less, sorry. It's a massive figure. I made a phone call to the South Australian gas company that's worked on

Them, and these double mantle AGL gas lamps were manufactured to run on 2. 3 megajoules. That's not 400. It's a considerably less figure. I'd just ask, Mr Mayor, through you, I'd like to request the specific breakdown that calculated 4, 100 tonnes. We need the math if we could, please. And I'd also like, if we could have — I'd also ask if the councillors could see or have or be given the gas bill so we can see how much gas

Is consumed so that we can work out the CO2 emissions for ourselves, please. Just to clarify, do you want to clarify what's in here or clarify the usage that we use within the system that we use?

I'd firstly like the math on how we got to 4, 100. That'll be taken on board, Councillor. Thank you. And secondly,

Can we have the opportunity as councillors to see the bill so we can work

Out the CO2 through the gas emissions? You'll get the information

You're after.

Thank you very much. If I may

I

Have to respond

To the response when I ask the question. Feasibly, I can't see it's 4, 000 tonnes, full stop. I'd have to say to

You, if you want

To go to the Department of Climate Change

I think you'd

Be better off getting the data from somewhere else

Because whoever struck that at 4, 000 tonnes shouldn't be there. It simply isn't, right? Council jury come up with a figure around about 15 tonnes. Well, I'll bend to that. I came to around about 11. 5 to 12. I'm not going to quibble about 3 tonnes per annum. But if we're going to go out to

Community and say, or answer a question saying, Ah yeah, well the gas lamps up there, Windsor is costing putting 4, 000-plus tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, is that misinformation? I guess so. So I just ask Council, look at the numbers and the data more clearly and don't rely on the Department of Climate Change, because I don't. I don't trust them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think the way to actually clarify it would be if the staff were to seek a proper calculation from perhaps a university or a centre that does it . If there's some sort of issue, I mean, I think there's a double-barrelled thing here, which is both the cost of the electricity and then, of course

The cost

From

The emissions. They're two separate things. And I think we've been provided with various information around it and, you know , I would just like an update that's based on how much is used. Yeah. The general manager make a comment. Thank you, Councillors. If you'll recall, the original question around this was because there was uncertainty around that figure. Certainly our initial belief is that that figure is overestimated. Okay, so we're happy to acknowledge that. Where we're having trouble unpacking is the utility bill at this point, because we know that the gas lamps were turned on around just slightly before

The June long weekend. It wasn't until December

Or January that we've received our first bill, so we're having trouble just breaking that apart at this point in time. That is the analysis we are undertaking at the moment. I am hopeful that if it's not the 18th of February meeting, that it will be the March meeting when we will have the actual utilisation from the meters so that we will see, and then we will use best practice benchmarking from DQ or whoever the relevant best practice agency is to benchmark the emissions data from that point backwards. All right. Any further matters on that? The motion is that the information be received. All those in favour? There's a motion before us. Don't need it. Okay. All right. The next item is, yeah, community representation on Council's Heritage Committee.

There's another set of questions. Yep. 14. 1. 2 is questions again, and it's a page and a half of mine, and it's answered that. Okay. Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor.

I've got a

Question on that. Okay.

Can I get some information about how the cumulative impacts are actually determined, and

Who then polices the notion that

The runoff pre-development

Is the same as the runoff post-development? The other piece of information that I think would

Be useful when we're discussing Redbank is what happens when the

Dams are full.

And I think this pertains not just to Redbank but to the current way development is being run. We're seeing exactly the same thing now happening at Oakville as Kalani Chain of Ponds fills, and that water all sheets into the backyards

Of Oakville,

And McGrath Hill, or the

Backyards is the

Best option

For some people it's

Their lounge

Room. What happens when these These

Were effectively

Now, they were originally dams, they are now detention basins. What happens when they're full and you get another rain event? Because this is, to me, appears to be a really flawed piece of logic that only works when you've got a decent dry period between rain events. And we saw at Redbank a couple of years ago that we had two very big wet events very close together. For me , it's inconceivable to me that post-development would equal pre-development runoff, particularly at Yabarnie. It's inconceivable at just about every other site that is covered in hardstanding. But Yabarnie particularly, so Redbank, was engineered to hold water via the keyline design and ploughing system. It is an extraordinary piece of engineering, and that's all gone, and most of those dams are gone as well.

So it is utterly inconceivable to me that a property that was once a large sponge and is now basically hardstanding can be identical. And I want to know how we determine this, because this is a discussion we need to have before we approve anything else. We are washing people's land away with some of the decisions that are being made, and when they're made in other spaces as well , we are impacting on people. So I think, for us to just keep saying they're going to be the same at both ends, I'm not satisfied with that. Yeah, thanks, Councillor. I'll just make a comment for — Ask the staff. There's a process with the development applications and all that sort of stuff, and I know the issues at North Richmond.

I know when they — I remember when they were cow paddocks, and that's why I asked the staff for the information that's provided here. And engineers that are certainly much better qualified than I have worked through a process that the council agreed to, and that those issues are addressed from time to time, both through extended applications at a later time and other ways of which the developer and council respond to those things. We've got a situation in North Richmond where — where this come about, the ladies in the gallery tonight — there's a problem there with the water that travels down Redbank, and the information not only that's in this report but the weather bureau and the

Rainfall in relation to that is also available. It was circumstances that don't normally happen , and considering that Redbank, and that's what we're talking about here, is 12 percent of the catchment area, I wouldn't be laying blame too much on any one property. But I'd like, through you, General Manager, if the staff have got some comments in relation to the questions that were asked by Councillor Wheeler. I'll pass that through to the Director Infrastructure. Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. To the question of cumulative impacts, given that the requirement is to meet pre-development downstream flows at the point of discharge, there is no cumulative impact in terms of peak flow. To the question of how detention basins are accounted for if they're not empty or if water tanks aren't empty, that's, I have to say, a much broader question that the engineering fraternity has to grapple with along with a number of variables when we undertake hydrological studies .

Assumptions are made . I'm not particularly across the assumptions that were made in the various stormwater management plans that were provided in support of the Redbank development, but I can certainly take that on notice. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just to follow up on the response from the Director of Infrastructure, so the reliance is on works as executed plan rather than an actual quantified evaluation. Is that correct? So there's

No physical measurement of actual discharge flow after a particular subdivision

Is constructed. Through you, Mr Mayor, no. And the reason for that is that it's, I wouldn't say impossible, but very, very difficult to capture a design rainfall event with the catchment in the condition that it was modelled and then measure the discharge flows. I can't imagine how you would feasibly do that for any particular development. The principle is that the proponent has to develop a solution. That's generally done by a recognised and appropriately qualified engineer. For a system that will capture and detain the peak flows and release them at a rate that is equal to or lesser than the pre-developed catchment flow. Those designs are then assessed through the development application process, and they are required to be verified that the design or the system has been constructed to that

Design through the

Works as executed, which has to be certified and provided to Council and accepted by Council prior to the issue of the subdivision works certificate or occupation certificate, subdivision certificate, whatever the case may be. So it isn't the case that it's possible or even feasible to plug in a design storm event over a catchment and

Deliver the right amount of rain over the right duration to measure the impact of the system. It is all done through the science and the engineering of the design, and then an assurance process to ensure that what has been designed has actually been constructed on the ground. Thank you. Just, sorry, just one follow-up from that. So I understand that, but given the amount of time and the changes within the catchment, has there ever been an update on those original — I know that the pre-discharge flow isn't going to change in its volume — but has there been updates on those various engineering designs at each stage? Is that a new design or are they all reliant on the original design? Through you, Mr Mayor, I am not aware of the detail of that.

I would have to take that on notice. But what I would say is that both the standards change over time. So the bible for Australian rainfall and runoff, ARR, has been revised, and there are — Multiple points at which this is captured, I suppose. There's a kind of a landscape with the development, the subdivision process, but then also looking at other DAs, the actual construction of homes, uses of water tanks and so forth. So my understanding is, or my expectation is that it would be an iterative process as development comes online. But we can take that on notice and come back to you.

Thank you. Thank you. Just

To clarify,

The matter that brought this to council, the property involved, there is talks to try and rectify that problem. And as it progresses, I'll make the councilors aware of that. Okay. The next item is 15. 2.

1, and the matters are confidential. There's three matters. Are we going to confidential? Councilor Lyons-Buckett. Mr Mayor

I've got a question around that.

My question regards item

15. 3. 1. I'm just not entirely sure why that is necessary to be heard in confidential. I don't have any issue with it . I'm just going by what we have been issued, directions about transparency and so on, and I don't understand, if someone could explain to me why a lease between two government entities would have to be considered in confidential. General Manager. Thank you. Simply, Councillors, because there is the potential here for a commercial transaction. Okay, so, and the valuation negotiations and those types of

Transactional discussions

That we may not want the other party to be privy

To are

Best held in confidential session. Thank you. We need

A motion to

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you.

Councillor Creed. All those in favour?

Against? Carried.

Unanimous.

General Manager. Thank you, Mr Mayor . In regards to item 15. 2. 1, community representation on Council's Heritage Committee, whilst in closed session the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Creed, seconded by Councillor Veigel, that Council appoint the following persons as community representatives on Council's Heritage Committee for the Council term: Michelle Nicholls

No, Michelle Nichols, Graham Edds, Jan Barkley-Jack, Carol Roberts, Michael Edwards, Deborah Hallam, Venetia Wilson, Cheryl Ballantyne, Erin Wilkins, Carl Robinson, and Richard Holdforth, and that motion was carried unanimously by all councillors. In regards to item 15. 2. 2, community representation on Council's Floodplain Management Committee, whilst in closed session the Council resolved on the motion of — oh , Councillor Ryan declared an interest . We'll come back to that after I've read the minutes. Thanks, Laurie. Sorry. Council resolved on the motion

Of Councillor

Creed, seconded by Councillor McMahon, that Council appoint the following persons as community representatives on Council's Floodplain Management Committee for the Council term: Kevin Conolly, Wayne Mitchell, Yara Hanlon-Smith, Murray West, Laurie Rose, and Christopher Bell and Maurie Smith. For the motion were Councillors Zamprogno, Djuric, McMahon, Creed, Vargal, Reardon and Sheather. Against the motion were Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett , Councillor Ryan, Councillor Dogramaci and Councillor Kotlash abstained. In regards to item 15. 3. 1, the compulsory lease of part of three Bells Line of Road, North Richmond by Transport for New South Wales. Whilst in closed session on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Creed, Council resolved that: one, Council agree to enter into a lease agreement with Transport for New South Wales for part of three Bells Line of Road, North Richmond, known as proposed lot 47 in DP 787272, in accordance with the proposal outlined in the report.

Council raise no objections to the Transport for New South Wales compulsory leasing area in the order of 2, 540 square metres within three Bells Line of Road, North Richmond, known as lot 47 DP 787272, under the terms outlined in the report. Three, Council consent to the lease of the land by Transport for New South Wales referred to in part two by compulsory lease acquisition process, including by agreeing that in accordance with sections 29 and 30 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act of 1991, that the pre-acquisition procedures will not apply as an agreement has been reached. Four, authority will be given for any documentation in association with the report to be executed under the seal of Council.

Five, the details of Council's resolution will be conveyed to Transport for New South Wales together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put the resolution into effect has been agreed and executed by all parties. That vote was carried unanimously with all councillors in support. Lastly, Mr Mayor, Councillor Ryan made a declaration in respect of item 15. 2. 2 that he should now read for the record. Yeah, in

Respect of that, the community representatives on the Council Floodplain Management Committee, the President of the Pitt Town Progress Association, Mr Christopher Bell, made an application to request to be on this Floodplain Committee. At

Present, I am the Vice President of the Pitt Town Progress Association. I believe this constitutes a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in the matter. Thank you , Councillor. That

Concludes the meeting tonight, Councillors. Thanks very much for your participation, and welcome to the Pro Councillor Ryan.